Fraud in the Great Pyramid - The Final Proof

In 1837, British adventurer and pyramid explorer, Col. Richard Howard Vyse became the first person to find written texts within any pyramid hitherto
explored at that time. These ancient Egyptian texts were found within some hidden chambers high above the King's Chamber and had to be blasted open
with the use of gunpowder. Vyse opened a total of 4 hidden chambers and within each a number of hieroglyphics were found.

Great Pyramid 'Relieving Chambers'

The lowest 'Davison's Chamber' was actually discovered by Nathaniel Davison in 1765 and was apparently open since the time of the pyramid's
construction. The opening to this small apartment was located at the very top of the southern end of the Grand Gallery and required a 20 foot ladder
to gain access. Davison only noticed it because he apparently saw some bats flying in and out of it.

Grand Gallery showing access to Davison's Chamber

Inside Davison's Chamber

Curiously, Davison found no writing of any kind in this first chamber. Dr Zahi Hawass claims to have seen some markings in this chamber but, to date,
he has presented nothing.

The hieroglyphics in the chambers opened by Vyse included the various names of the 4th dynasty king Khufu; the pharaoh that Egyptologists had long
believed (via the writings of Herodotus and some others) as the pyramid's builder. The discovery of this king's various names (cartouches) within
these sealed chamber was their 'Holy Grail' of evidence and proved, conclusively, that Khufu built the pyramid and thus its construction date could be
no later than ca.2550BC when Khufu ruled Egypt.

Almost from the time these hieroglyphs were discovered by Vyse there was suspicion around them. In 1980 this suspicion culminated in an investigation
by author, Zecharia Sitchin, who concluded that Vyse had faked the marks himself. However, as a result of the flawed nature of some aspects of
Sitchin's evidence, many who supported Sitchin's fraud theory (such as Graham Hancock), quickly backed away from the controversy and issued
retractions.

However, my own investigation into this controversial issue over the past decade (or thereabouts) has found much more evidence to support the forgery
theory first proposed by Sitchin. One of the items of evidence Sitchin presented in his book, 'Journeys to the Mythical Past' was a page from
the ham-radio logbook of a Mr Walter Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Apparently Allen's great grandfather, Humphries Brewer, had worked with Vyse
at Giza in 1837 and it seems witnessed forgery taking place.

Walter Allen & Family - Allen Logbook on right.

There was a problem, however. Colonel Vyse published three volumes of his 'Operations at Gizeh 1837' and there is not a single mention of
Brewer in any volume. This absence has prompted some authors to question whether Brewer was with Vyse in Egypt at all in 1837, inferring that
Allen's account is a confused history or, at worst, a fabrication. Of course, if Brewer had indeed accused Vyse of perpetrating a fraud inside the
Great Pyramid in 1837 then it is perhaps understandable why Vyse would write him out of his published work - and especially so if there was any truth
to the allegations.

But it occurred to me that, while Vyse may have expunged Brewer's name from his published work he may not have done so in his private
journal (which Vyse used as the basis of his published work). I tracked the journal to a small archive centre in Aylesbury to the north of London and,
with my wife Louise, went to read the journal, hoping to find Brewer's name in order to corroborate Walter Allen's logbook account. When Louise and I
eventually began looking at Vyse's worn pages, we discovered way more than we had ever anticipated. While Vyse's handwriting was extremely difficult
to read (it would take me a number of years to become comfortable with it), the hieroglyphics he had drawn on a number of pages told their own story -
a story that contradicted Vyse's official account. All of this evidence was presented in my book The Great Pyramid Hoax (Bear & Co, 2017).
However, since HOAX was published, even more evidence has presented itself and it comes from Vyse's actual handwritten notes (which I am now
reasonably proficient at reading). Take, for example, this page (below) which is Vyse's handwritten account of his first visit to Campbell's Chamber
of the Great Pyramid where the famous Khufu cartouche was supposedly found:

As you can see, Vyse's handwriting is very difficult to read and there are even a few words in this text I am unsure of. Overall though, I am
confident I have given a fair transcription. Notice how Vyse, having described every aspect of the chamber then 'signs off' his description with the
comment, " : as it was within Campbell's Chamber, May 27, 1837."

But surely there is something missing in that description? Where is any mention of the supposed quarry marks or the famous Khufu cartouche from the
chamber? If these were indeed present at that time then surely the above description passage of the chamber was the most obvious and appropriate place
in Vyse's private journal to mention them. But no - they're not mentioned in this passage. And there's a good reason for that which we discover in the
passage that follows-on from the above (below):

Here we find the reason Vyse made no mention of the quarry marks in his description of Campbell's Chamber - they weren't there because what we see
above is effectively Vyse's 'note to self' to instruct his 2 assistants (Raven & Hill) "to inscribe" (note: future tense) the Khufu cartouche (which
Vyse likely found on some stones somewhere around the pyramid's exterior) onto a roof trussing of the chamber. Note also that this is to be carried
out by Raven & Hill, the same 2 men identified in Allen's logbook account from 1954 that his grandfather had the dispute with.

If my reading of these pages is correct (and I am fairly confident that they are), then what we are witnessing here is clear evidence of fraud having
taken place inside this chamber of the Great Pyramid in 1837. And it is through such unscrupulous actions that our history becomes subverted and
distorted.

But this would be huge wouldn't it? The archeologist and egyptologist will have to revamp their theories, 'gasp' maybe even admitting they were wrong.
So the geologists stating the sphinx is a lot older than the 'experts' state by observing water erosion could also be correct. Those people stating
the egyptian hieroglyphs on these ancient structures looks to be crude graffiti that was added at a much later date could also be proved correct.

Maybe the sphinx & pyramid are much older than claimed. Maybe the egyptians simply used the structures like the mayans did, who stated their ancient
pyramids were there before they arrived, built by the gods. If those structures are allowed to be exposed to be very old, at least 10,000 years and
older, it will upset our manufactured history they so thoroughly shove down our throats every chance they get.

Why is it so important for them to hide and falsely recreate our history? What will the knowledge of our true history allow us to do?

a reply to: Scott Creighton
The problem with this "discovery" is that it was painted not carved, so egyptologists who believe it genuine say it's ancient graffiti. Therefore
giving the impression that because it's got the pharaohs cartouche the pyramid must be attributed to him.
With all the will in the world egyptologists fight a losing battle when trying to attribute the pyramid to any pharaoh because of what's missing, not
what's there.
All the Pharaohs throughout all the dynasties like to inform everybody of their achievements and as far as I know without exception. They carved their
names and victories on all their edifices, that was their way to partway achieve immortality.
That is the problem as the great pyramid has no carving at all, in or out. Now think on this, if you were the pharaoh who had this built you would
have made damn sure your name would be carved everywhere on it. But it's bare.

I suppose it really does require all this work to show that what we know about ancient world is mainly a lie. Then again I also believe that anyone
who is interested in such a thing would naturally find them selfs in dis belief anyways. We are being lied to for sure.

Thank you for your hard work and diligence. This has been a nice read thank you again.

Impressive work! I remember having had a huge argument with others about a possible fraud by Vyse on another forum. Just a passing mention of any such
possibility would drive every Egyptologist extremely mad.

Given the unknown origins, anyone back then who could prove a connection with known historical figures in ancient Egypt would have gone down in
history and be credited with this discovery. So a motive for fraud always existed.

Now, the other arguments that Egyptologists are referring to when it comes to dating the pyramid are the red ocre paint marks in one of the air shafts
and the C14 results from mortar samples taken from various courses of the GP. But even if the presumed age of the GP is correct, it is quite exciting
to think of it as not having been commissioned by Khufu.

I've been doing some research of my own and I am leaning towards the Pyramids and Sphinx being a creation of an ancient Iberian culture. The original
Egyptian mythos would have come from these first people from the west.

If my reading of these pages is correct (and I am fairly confident that they are), then what we are witnessing here is clear evidence of fraud having
taken place inside this chamber of the Great Pyramid in 1837. And it is through such unscrupulous actions that our history becomes subverted and
distorted.

SC

It is because of people like you, who are willing to search for the truth that significant lies about our past can be corrected. Thank you for
service..

The only problem is the mainstream scientist... even if the truth is staring them right in their faces they can not admit they have been wrong. It
will take probably an entire new generation of egyptologist to change the facts of history.

I am sure Zahi Hawass will refuse to hear you, see your evidence or to give it even a thought.. (that will be a quite the accomplishment anyways..with
his one brain cell active)

Gobekli Tepi has kind of blown the lid off of what used to be the 'accepted' academic stances on these massive constructions and age. It does seem
that many of them, in addition to being still mysterious as far as construction, might also be far more ancient than we have been lead to believe.

Why this has become the pervue of amateurs and denied by conventional academia is anybody's guess, except that careers and reputations seem to depend
on the false agendas. Egypt seems to be keeping a lid on many structures still below their sands. Some say that they will reveal them slowly to keep
tourism interest alive from year to year.

a reply to: Scott Creighton
Enjoying the YT video interview, so far 24 min in. Vyse seemed like a pretty unsavory dude. A guy driven to find answers, either financial motivation
or used by higher ups to ensure history goes their way.

I believe you hit the nail right on the head ... human egos ... these “experts” will never admit they were wrong because to do so means their
favorite theories were wrong and if that is the case then these educated authorities were never the “experts” they have held themselves out to be
(some for their entire professional lives) ... and then there is the issue of national pride where if you take away the most impressive monuments from
an ancient culture and now state the did not create them but rather just assimilated them into their later civilization then a measure of prestige
attached to that culture is diminished

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.